This came through from a s*bscr*ber who posted from the wrong address.
Thus, the message bounced. However, the content was worth forwarding
anyway.
Paul
----- Forwarded message from slug@lists.nks.net -----
From: jeremy bowers <jeremy@jeremybowers.com>
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Hard Drive brand question
IBM should be out of the question. Recently, their hard drives have been
exposed as having a ridiculous mean time between failure rate. They aren't
even producing drives anymore -- any drive you buy now was built several
months ago and has been rotting in a warehouse.
IBM has recommended that no drive be left on more than 333 hours per
month. That breaks down to like 11 hours per day. I'd think you want more
than that kind of production out of a drive.
Some of the horror stories? 40 out of 100 IBM 120GXP drives crash within 3
months of purchase by a small ISP.
Individual users of 40GXP drives getting less than 8 months of production,
IBM claims the drive isn't under warranty, because the damage was caused
by "excessive wear and tear" and under "extreme conditions." The user left
their computer on for six consecutive months with only reboots bringing
the system down occasionally. Doesn't sound "exessive" or "extreme" to me.
Here's the site where the people with a class-action lawsuit are suing IBM
now.
http://www.sheller.com/ibmpress.htm
Older IBM drives are still rock solid, but anything in the last year or
two is suspect.
I've got a Maxtor 40gb 7200 in my main computer, and it's been great. I
also hear that Western Digital is putting out an acceptable product. A
good friend had some misgivings about the Caviar series, but
couldn't/wouldn't elaborate.
--Jeremy
-- Pine: It's not the features, It's the fresh scent.----- End forwarded message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:02:05 EDT